There is academic controversy about whether Catharism ... So the aspect of gnosis you describe doesn't logically constitute an existential threat
I don't really want to discuss Catharism. I just used that as the first example that I could think of at the time, and perhaps that wasn't the best example to use.
Maybe a better example of what the Church would consider an existential threat is be the Gospel of John in the NT. Why look any further? IMO, the Gospel of John is a Gnostic text. Every Christian knows "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God". But the Greek word they translated as word is logos. Logos means the organizing principle, the divine intelligence, the creative consciousness that structures reality. In Gnostic cosmology, the logos is the first emanation from the Monad, the infinite source. So, the logos already existed. Before time, before creation, before the material world, the logos is eternal, uncreated, which means the logos is not separate from the source. The logos and the Monad are one consciousness expressing as a parent too. Then in verse 14, John drops the bomb that the church has spent two millennia trying to contain and the logos became flesh and dwelt among us. The logos, the emanation of the Monad, the organizing principle of reality, the consciousness that is God took human form, not as a unique miracle that only happened once, as a demonstration of what's possible for the awaken ones.
The church turned this into the doctrine of the incarnation. Jesus is God in flesh. Equally amazing to the doctrine of the Trinity, but on that later. Worship him. Obey him. You're not him. You're separate, forever inferior. John wrote that the logos became flesh. And if chosen ones carry the logos, which John says they do in chapter 1 12-13, then they too are the Monad in flesh. Incarnated divine consciousness, not servants of God. God experiencing itself as human. The church's entire control structure depends on separation. Obey the church, listen to the priests, become & stay dependent, and most importantly stay separated. Now, the Gospel of of John constitutes an existential threat. They had to do something because it was too popular to destroy, but its interpretation was locked down. Jesus is God. You are not, end of discussion. But, they couldn't change what John actually wrote.
You say it's a consciousness. Who is the first person then? Serious question
Everything is consciousness. And can be scientifically explained. Maybe it's best if I give you a link. Clif High talks about “The Pulse” and “The Wave”, in summary he claims all energy comes from the fact we’re pulsing reality at a rate of 22 trillion times a second. So fast it’s impossible for us to realize what’s happening. Reality here could be defined as the simulation I was talking about earlier, but think of it as the material/physical world we live in. According to Clif our reality gets created, destroyed then re-created at this amazing speed which gives rise to the Wave. So, in his opinion everything is consciousness which simulates matter that stays together due to magnetism.
Watch this 40 minute video, Clif may be a paranoid person (genetics), but he’s no dummy. There is a subsequent video he created, also a long time ago, which goes deeper into different levels of frequency and consciousness. Here is the link to "The Wooble": https://www.bitchute.com/video/kR81P5xQrruw/
Can you distinguish this signal from other signals that have similar characteristics? Serious question
Actually this is another good question you're asking. I have also been thinking about this for a long time. It's hard to identify & isolate such signal. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus dropped a code that the church never fully cracked. He said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear.". For a long time, people thought this was poetic metaphor. IMO, it wasn't, it was simply literal. He was talking about the frequency encryption. Think of truth as a radio broadcast. The signal is omnipresent. It is everywhere all the time. But the signal is encrypted at a specific bandwidth, a frequency of pure coherence. This is what I call the source or the Monad. The physical world, the reality you live in, vibrates at a much lower, denser frequency. It is fragmented, chaotic, just noise.
Maybe would be easier if I list three reasons I believe you know you are vibrating at the same "frequency" with the Monad?
#1: the glass wall. You have felt a distinct separation from the rest of the world your entire life. Have you ever asked yourself "Why am I feeling this way? why am I the only one feeling this pressure? Why is everyone else so comfortable in this system?". You look around and see everyone around you eating, drinking, and laughing. Maybe they aren't ignoring the signal. Maybe they physically cannot perceive it. Maybe you weren't crazy. Maybe you were just hearing what they couldn't. Plato described this perfectly in his allegory of the cave. Most of humanity is chained, watching shadows on the wall, believing the shadows are reality. You are the prisoner who managed to turn your head. You saw the fire. You saw the puppets casting the shadows. And once you see the mechanism of the illusion, you can never truly go back to watching the show like everyone else.
#2: system lag. The lag time between your internal thought and external reality is collapsing. You think of a specific concept and a stranger says that exact
word seconds later. You have a question in your mind and the radio answers it literally. This isn't coincidence. It is rendering speed. Your frequency is rising so high the Matrix is struggling to buffer your reality.
#3: sematic gnosis. It is happening right now in your body. The Greeks called it gnosis, knowledge through direct experience. Your body is a lie detector machine. When you hear high-level truth, your biology reacts before your brain does. You get truth chills. That sudden rush of electricity down your spine or a sudden heat in your chest. An unexplainable urge to weep. Not from sadness, but from the sheer relief of recognition.
The Church should not consider things as existential threats.
The Gospel of John is about true gnosis.
Logos means the organizing principle of reality, the divine intelligence, the creative consciousness that structures reality.
Logos is the unique first emanation (firstborn) from the Monad.
So Logos already existed "before" time, eternal, uncreated, unseparated from source.
Logos and Monad are one consciousness.
Logos became flesh and dwelt among us, having taken full human form as never before, demonstrating all the potential of human form.
You object to the formula "God in flesh", but how is that different from saying Jesus is the one Consciousness in flesh?
I have written on the fact that, of the many words for worship, those applied to Jesus either were used routinely for the image of God in other humans or were ambiguous and applied to worshipping the Father in the Son (no latreia in himself). You might be interested in or repulsed by that, but it's wide open for discussion.
You object to "Obey Jesus", but how could there be any disobedience to him? How could there be any issue in being a different human than he is?
Now when we get to "inferior" that's not a Biblical word and it's not really a formal church teaching. We are One Body with him in the same way a bride is one body with a groom, never inferior, but subject to Jesus in the same way Jesus is to the source. The teaching and meaning of the bride is pretty important, is that problematic to you? I wouldn't call this "inferiority".
And if chosen ones carry the logos, which John says they do in chapter 1 12-13, then they too are the Monad in flesh. Incarnated divine consciousness, not servants of God. God experiencing itself as human.
Now this is where we need to be very technical in language to ensure what you mean is clearly communicated. Most of that is not the language of anyone in the first century. John 1:12-13 actually says we are sons of God (clearer 1 John 3:1-2), not by blood but by God (i.e. by his adoption). But Jesus came by blood (1 John 5:6), not by water only as adopted children come in baptism. The difference between the firstborn and all other children was well-established. The text is not "God in flesh" (nor "Monad" or "Unity"), but "Jesus in flesh" (1 John 4:2-3); you objected to the church saying "God in flesh", but you also permit it if you can call us "God in flesh". But we are told Jesus possesses the Pleroma (John 1:16) but we have only received "of" it (not received it "all", cf. Eph. 3:19, Col. 1:19, 2:9). If we could receive it all, I don't think that's been revealed (1 John 3:2). We are not called "incarnated" or "divine consciousness" of "God experiencing", though we are sons and partakers of divine nature. It seems straightforward that in a body there should be one head among the members, which is distinguished by being the foremost.
Jesus is God. You are not, end of discussion. But, they couldn't change what John actually wrote.
They made big mistakes; but since John's actual writing didn't contradict this simplified view they took, that doesn't strike me as one of the mistakes. We could go into what others said, but (as his children) we have the power to discern good and bad sayings (1 John 4:6).
Everything is consciousness.
Well, I generally count consciousness as personifying, maybe it's not so important. I don't do a lot of videos but I don't see a problem from your summary of Clif High. If we have Monad and we have first emanation of Logos and we have Logos possessing Pleroma that we partake of, that sounds like personal interaction. As a man, Jesus always did what man is capable of doing (but, often, what man had not yet done). As one monadic consciousness, there is always something unique to Jesus, expressed in the body and bride metaphors. If there were any barrier between any of us in the one body (e.g. a barrier between myself and Jesus), that would hinder any going forward in consciousness; so there is no ground for disobedience to Jesus, or surpassing Jesus in nature (as opposed to works), or for claiming to be one with everything when that hasn't been revealed. I hope that view isn't problematic.
I appreciate your giving practical answers to discernment! John also speaks heavily about discerning spiritual phenomena. Those perceptions including awakening separation, synchrony, and somatic reflex are indeed useful. Now when I perceive synchrony or somatic response I take that as a signal to heighten my awareness and pay close critical attention to immediate experience: sometimes I'm shown something central or true, but sometimes I'm shown something I discern to be shown me because of its illusory nature. But that discernment comes from my core, which is where the perception of separation takes place. If you've consciously dedicated your core to the Truth, the One, the Logos, it holds you such that nothing else can penetrate because it is greatest. That means that, relying on your having dedicated it, that which you receive from the core can be trusted, and the false voices are in contrast because they always take an external route. (Obviously the one who has dedicated himself to a falsehood will receive falsehoods in the core, which can be deceiving, and the solution can only be truth breaking through and being rededicated inside. I guess the SCIF is real.) So that's just a brief statement of my experience with those things.
It sounds like I'm concluding there are indeed extremists in the various modern churches, and they prove it by feeling threatened and by exercising involuntary control tactics. But we can get past that element and look for the people of every age who are dedicated to the Logos, and that never excludes Jesus as the head and as the groom.
You object to the formula "God in flesh", but how is that different from saying Jesus is the one Consciousness in flesh?
OK, I'll answer this. There was someone famous who said "we humans are a species with amnesia,". I just can't recall who at this moment. Jesus became the Christ, but Christ consciousness existed before Jesus and remains available after Jesus. He didn't come as the only son of God. He came as the eldest brother, showing all souls they too are children of God. "I and the Father are one,". Wasn't a claim of exclusive divinity, but a demonstration of inclusive divinity. Every soul is destined to make this same claim to achieve this same recognition. The church teaches Jesus was uniquely divine, different in kind from humanity. The Christ consciousness he achieved is your and my destiny, too. I was told in the past "This sounds like you're saying we can become God.". No, not become God. Remember, you are God. Jesus didn't become divine. He remembered his divinity while maintaining humanity. This is the pattern. This is the path. This is why he came. Not to start a new religion. Not to be worshipped as the exception but followed as the example. He clearly told us we are the Monad in flesh. The Gospel of John proves it in plain Greek. Now, do you see the difference with your statement "Consciousness in flesh", which is the how the Church puts it as well "God became flesh. That is the meaning of Incarnation.".
You object to "Obey Jesus", but how could there be any disobedience to him?
I think this is a misunderstanding. I object to the Church saying "obey Jesus", because the church replaced his commands/instructions/teachings with dogma. Everything Jesus taught was in the form of instructions (commands if you will), you need to be born again, feeding on truth, forgiveness, unconditional love and merging with the Father... all these were instructions for the same process available to every chosen one. That includes me so I gladly obey Jesus. The church tried to erase this. They failed. When it comes to the Gospel of John, the truth was written in a language they couldn't destroy and encoded in a text too popular to ban. All the Church could do was lie about what it means, and make Jesus an idol to be worshipped and obeyed.
What Jesus revealed to Peter the night before the crucifixion wasn't about salvation or sin. It was practical instruction, a precise method for accessing what he called the pathway beyond the veil. Peter's fragmentary accounts buried in texts the early church deemed too dangerous described specific techniques for breaking through what Jesus identified as deliberate barriers blocking human consciousness from its source. Jesus was teaching technology, consciousness technology that the
archons had systematically obscured. Within decades of his death, these practical instructions were stripped from Christian teaching, replaced with abstract concepts about faith and belief, dogma. The question is, why was this specific knowledge so threatening that it had to be completely erased? The church can't erase it anymore because chosen ones are reading it now without the filter.
And there's something else. A lot of Jesus's teachings go against Jewish religious authority. Remember, Jesus is living in Judea, which is a Roman province, but the day-to-day administration is run by Jewish priests. And these Jewish priests teach people to follow the law, to follow the Sabbath, meaning do not work on Saturdays, to obey the law of Moses, to keep all the customs and traditions of the Jewish faith. But according to the Bible, Jesus says, "No, what's important is not following the letter of the law, but following the spirit of God. What matters is the condition of your heart, not whether you perform the correct rituals.". And this creates a conflict because Jesus is essentially rebelling against the authority of the Jewish priests. That's why he had to die. So, the Christian Church has turned "obey the law of Moses" into "obey Jesus", this is what I object to.
never inferior, but subject to Jesus in the same way Jesus is to the source. The teaching and meaning of the bride is pretty important, is that problematic to you? I wouldn't call this "inferiority"
Many in the past have called Sophia the eternal bride, the soul of the world. She lived on in symbols, the dove, the rose, the chalice, quietly waiting for humanity to remember what was lost. Now Sophia was rebranded by the Church as temptation, error, or silence. And the "believers in Jesus" became the bride. There is no concept of bride in Gnosticism. Jesus came to show humans how to transcend the Demiurge and connect directly with the primordial source, the Monad. That is why the church burned the Gnostic texts. The Gospel of Judas explicitly mentions that Jesus laughed at the disciples for praying to the Demiurge. The Apocryphon of John describes the Demiurge as ignorant of the true God above him. The Gospel of Thomas teaches direct knowledge of the divine without intermediaries. But here's where the story becomes dangerous and why it was silenced. The Gnostics did not teach blind faith. They didn't preach obedience to external authority. They taught direct revelation. They claimed that within every person burns a fragment of the divine source, what they called the divine spark. To awaken that spark is to dissolve the archon's influence.
As a man, Jesus always did what man is capable of doing
IMO, Jesus has always been a man. Jesus was different only in degree of awareness and awakening to the rest of us. He simply remembered what everyone else forgot. That separation from God is impossible. That human and divine can coexist. That heaven is a state of consciousness, not a distant location. This is why Jesus said, "Greater things than these shall you do,", have you ever thought why did he said that? Jesus didn't mean it metaphorically, he meant it literally. We think we're here trying to achieve these three things: immortality, reincarnation, and godhood. And the secret is love powering our imagination. IMO, we're here to imagine things. So this is the great secret of the universe. This is the secret that Gnostics have been trying to share with everybody, and which schools, science, government, religious institutions all the powers that be try to suppress because is a direct threat to this reality. This reality is false, it's just a simulation. But they want to make it real because they derive power from it.
There was someone famous who said "we humans are a species with amnesia,". I just can't recall who at this moment.
funny
Jesus became the Christ, but Christ consciousness existed before Jesus and remains available after Jesus.
I'm looking into it. If we call it "Logos" and/or "Spirit of Christ", then of course.
He didn't come as the only son of God.
In John 3:16 it's "monogenes", the same term as for Isaac who had half-brothers, so literally not "only", but "only of the kind", unique. Would you agree his meaning is that he's unique?
"I and the Father are one,". Wasn't a claim of exclusive divinity, but a demonstration of inclusive divinity.
Maybe, that would require more cautious definition of those words.
Every soul is destined to make this same claim to achieve this same recognition.
This is something I'm not confident of. To be one with the Father would be to be timeless, for instance, and I'm not able to make any plans to be timeless. When Jesus specifies the meaning in more detail in John 17, he never attributes oneness with the Father to us, only to himself; but oneness with him is attributed to us. That seems important.
The church teaches Jesus was uniquely divine, different in kind from humanity.
I don't think it teaches Jesus was different in kind because it teaches he was fully human. If you speak of it as Jesus's "achievement of Christ consciousness", that is unique in being the first ever, and that is divine. The way in which we achieve Christ consciousness is spoken of as secondary in the groom-bride and head-body metaphors.
No, not become God. Remember, you are God.
Are you all of God? Or are you a water droplet in the sea, which is the sea in the sense that it is of the sea?
He remembered his divinity while maintaining humanity.
What does "remember" mean?
Not to start a new religion.
Correct, he taught total continuity with the covenants that came before.
Not to be worshipped as the exception but followed as the example.
Did you read my link about the meaning of "worship"?
He clearly told us we are the Monad in flesh. The Gospel of John proves it in plain Greek.
He did? It does? Why do readers of plain Greek not see it? How could we come to agreement on what the plain Greek proves? The Logos is not the Monad.
Now, do you see the difference with your statement "Consciousness in flesh", which is the how the Church puts it as well "God became flesh. That is the meaning of Incarnation.".
No I don't. I was attempting to summarize how you put it when you said "the consciousness that is God took human form". There's something unique about how Consciousness took on humanity in Jesus because it says he possessed the Spirit beyond measure, but we partake of the Spirit by measure. Which is why I ask you about definitions.
I object to the Church saying "obey Jesus", because the church replaced his commands/instructions/teachings with dogma.
Certainly if someone says "obey Jesus" but means "obey my interpretation of Jesus and not your own", that's a fault, which the church has engaged and for which I apologize.
merging with the Father
I read Jesus a lot and haven't seen him instruct that of us.
What Jesus revealed to Peter the night before the crucifixion wasn't about salvation or sin. It was practical instruction, a precise method for accessing what he called the pathway beyond the veil. Peter's fragmentary accounts buried in texts the early church deemed too dangerous described specific techniques for breaking through what Jesus identified as deliberate barriers blocking human consciousness from its source.
How would we know the difference between what one manuscript says Jesus said and what another says he said? Wouldn't historical evidence indicate which are more likely to be original and which derivative?
Within decades of his death, these practical instructions were stripped from Christian teaching, replaced with abstract concepts about faith and belief, dogma.
In the decades after his resurrection there is pretty good evidence that lots of instructions of all kinds were circulating and many openly disagreed with each other. It was not until 150 that there was a document, Irenaeus, where we start to see certain views clearly deprecated in favor of other views. Perhaps that's what you mean. Maybe you mean that some groups ceased to exist in the war of 66-73 and so their writings were "stripped" until rediscovered. But it seems the true instructions can be tested by various tests that work the same for everyone: authority, coherence, apostolicity, continuity, etc.
The question is, why was this specific knowledge so threatening that it had to be completely erased?
Doesn't matter now because:
The church can't erase it anymore because chosen ones are reading it now without the filter.
Yes, and from all I've read it only serves as counterpoint to what I already learned. If there were a binary disagreement then it would need to be decided based on marks like I listed above.
And these Jewish priests teach people ... to keep all the customs and traditions of the Jewish faith.
As they defined them. Those that didn't reflect Moses could be challenged by anyone, which is what Jesus did.
But according to the Bible, Jesus says, "No, what's important is not following the letter of the law, but following the spirit of God. What matters is the condition of your heart, not whether you perform the correct rituals.".
According to Matt. 5:18, 20, Jesus says, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled .... Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." It's Paul that says, "We should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter"; but also "We know that the law is spiritual", Rom. 7:6, 14. Jesus never contradicted Moses but served everything written in spirit and in truth (or else he would not be the Perfect one). Of the right of rabbis to interpret the law (and duty to interpret rightly), he said, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do" (Matt. 23:2-3).
And this creates a conflict because Jesus is essentially rebelling against the authority of the Jewish priests. That's why he had to die. So, the Christian Church has turned "obey the law of Moses" into "obey Jesus", this is what I object to.
More accurately, Jesus wasn't a rebel (again, he was the Perfect Man); he asserted his right to disagree with interpretation and contribute to it, and (I believe I said) the extremists among the Pharisees and others were the ones who perceived the threat and weren't then open-minded (though many were later). I presume you don't teach "obey the Law of Moses" even though Jesus taught it; but that's a different detailed discussion to get right. The finesse is, whatever Jesus taught, and teaches, is what we want.
Now Sophia was rebranded by the Church as temptation, error, or silence. And the "believers in Jesus" became the bride.
Not what I experience. Sophia is Wisdom and was clearly depicted in Prov. 8 and many other sources and accepted in early Christianity. They also believed in gnosis and Paul contrasted it with pseudognosis because not everything known is true gnosis. Now it does appear that by Augustine there was some rebranding of the tree of gnosis as being more like an evil rather than an occasion to evil, which is a loss of communication. The bride is a regular metaphor in Jesus, Paul, and John, and the body is also, and the two are one because a man's bride is his body. But they are one with him because they possess Sophia and that seals the identity.
Jesus came to show humans how to transcend the [adversary] and connect directly with the primordial source, the Monad.
This is where we get disconnected, because after Jesus affirms every serif of the Law of Moses, which affirms Yahweh, some gnostics (not all) separated Jesus from Yahweh and declared Yahweh to be the adversary and the physical to be the evil (even though Job separates Yahweh and the adversary). Yes, Jesus did teach transcendence of the adversary and connection with the Monad, and that part doesn't contradict the Bible. But if we then give the adversary more titles or narrative than he deserves, we're not fighting him very well.
The Gospel of Judas explicitly mentions that Jesus laughed at the disciples for praying to the Demiurge.
Judas: 'When he [came up to] his disciples sitting together praying over the bread, [he] laughed. The disciples said to him, "Master, why are you laughing at [our] prayer? What have we done? [This] is what's right." He answered and said to them, "I'm not laughing at you. You're not doing this because you want to, but because through this your God [will be] praised."' So, no Demiurge explicit or implicit, nothing about a false god, but only about reasons for behavior.
The Apocryphon of John describes the Demiurge as ignorant of the true God above him.
Apocryphon: '[Sophia] intended to reveal an image from herself .... She brought it into being .... [She had created him in ignorance.] ... She named him Yaldabaoth .... Yadabaoth united with the thoughtlessness (aponoia) within him. He begot ruling authorities (exousia) modeling them on the incorruptible realms above .... [He is ignorant darkness.] ... This dim ruler has three names: Yaldabaoth is the first. Saklas is the second. Samael is the third. He is blasphemous through his thoughtlessness. He said "I am God, and there is no God but me!" since he didn’t know where his own Power originated.' So, first take, he is aware of incorruptible realms (aeons) above, but he denies other gods and accords the title "God" only to himself. Aponoia is not literally "thoughtlessness" but "separate thought". How much more reason not to accord him a name that might mean Yah Sabaoth, or a creative power that he doesn't have. When I look into the provenance of this apocryphon, I find that Sophia comes from the Ogdoad, and the Ogdoad appears derived from the Egyptian Ogdoad, indicating that the addition of Yaldabaoth to the story is also derivative from something Cainite. But when I read Jesus's statements about the satan in Scripture, they appear very accurate to his time and place and very wise in their eternal applicability. So how could we decide among these texts except by using historical tests? The fact that a text was suppressed doesn't mean it's automatically right, in fact it might well have been just too stupid to reproduce (as is true of so many ancient texts).
The Gnostics did not teach blind faith. They didn't preach obedience to external authority.
Oh, if you look at every ancient gnostic you'll find quite a few teaching blind faith and their own external authority. But that's because it's not monolithic. If you separate those out and seek whether there were good teachings of individuality among the rest, we might sift some good things out.
They claimed that within every person burns a fragment of the divine source, what they called the divine spark. To awaken that spark is to dissolve the archon's influence.
For instance. In Judaism and Christianity this accords with the image of God.
IMO, Jesus has always been a man.
Since he was conceived, yes.
Jesus was different only in degree of awareness and awakening to the rest of us.
That might be a formulation to use, I'll think about it.
That separation from God is impossible.
That might be valid too; I'd say a being that is separate from God is impossible. "Separation" being an abstract.
That heaven is a state of consciousness, not a distant location.
Jesus and Paul taught there were three heavens; we participate freely in the first, the air. I don't think the hierarchy of heavens is much different from the hierarchy of aeons.
This is why Jesus said, "Greater things than these shall you do,", have you ever thought why did he said that? Jesus didn't mean it metaphorically, he meant it literally.
Yes, John 14:12, we're doing greater works today. But a text search shows some variability in this concept. Of himself, he said, "The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him" (13:16), and, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (15:13). He also implied his works increase in the same way our works increase: "He will shew him [the Son] greater works than these, that ye may marvel" (5:20). But he also backs off temporally from the title of greater: "But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth" (Luke 22:26-27).
We think we're here trying to achieve these three things: immortality, reincarnation, and godhood.
That's fine enough. More accurately, I'd say that we speak of conferred immortality (aphtharsia, athanasia) rather than inherent immortality (aidios); a form of oversoul reincarnation (gilgul) rather than a form of transmigration reincarnation (punarjanman); and partaking of divine nature (theosis) rather than deification (apotheosis).
And the secret is love powering our imagination. IMO, we're here to imagine things. So this is the great secret of the universe. This is the secret that Gnostics have been trying to share with everybody, and which schools, science, government, religious institutions all the powers that be try to suppress because is a direct threat to this reality. This reality is false, it's just a simulation. But they want to make it real because they derive power from it.
Excluding the people who perceive a threat, what would be wrong with any of that in the rest of Christianity? Lots of Orthodox, and lots of Catholic and Protestant mystics, practice theosis quite well (hundreds of millions) without feeling threatened or abandoning earthly forms that they find helpful.
So I've given you the bold answers, including where I think a nuance is necessary because of a definition or a text. It seems that it's not necessary to give the adversary the credit you propose, or to advance a particular narrative, in order to advance in love, imagination, or pursuit of the greater. When two narratives do reach a point of contradiction, those pursuing truth will not be threatened but will find the resolution of peace.
There was someone famous who said "we humans are a species with amnesia,"... funny... What does "remember" mean?
I didn't start my reply with a joke, or a funny statement, I just anticipated your next question. I'm sure you've heard of archons, but you don't know exactly what is their purpose, since you're asking this question. The Nag Hammadi manuscripts spoke in depth about the archons and how our memories have been erased or reprogrammed by them. And here is the secret teaching of Jesus, if we bypass the archons we don’t get those memories back, we jump through the energy barrier that contains the archons and proceed directly to source. The manuscripts revealed this method to overcome them, not to fight them, but simply to remember. Not remembering in the usual sense, but a mystical recognition, a sudden inner knowing that pierces the veil of falsehood and reconnects you to the source. You know those moments when you hear something and can't quite explain why, but deep down you feel it's true. This is awakening your inner spark. And that awakening is what the archons fear most. Because the moment you truly see, it doesn't just dissolve the structure of deception. It opens your entire perception of reality itself. Archons don't fear weapons, rituals, or rebellion. It's clarity and inner knowing they fear most. Because clarity doesn't just burn through their shadow. It burns through the one that clouds your perception. Archons are not physical entities hiding in some corner of the universe. They are distortions of consciousness, echoes born when divine light entered the realm of matter and fragmented. They exist in the unseen layers of thought, emotion, and energy. And like reflections without substance, they are unable to exist on their own. That's why they're called parasites.
They depend on awareness that has forgotten itself. What sustains them? Your attention, your fear, your unconscious reaction to illusion. The archons manipulate through imitation. They copy reality but lack the creative spark of the divine. They are mimics, masters of counterfeit light. They whisper through collective belief in media in systems in endless conflict. The Gospel of Mary describes this as the kingdom of the flesh, a world where false powers stir desire and confusion until the soul forgets its own light. These forces aren't random. They are deliberate distortions, reflections of the archon's imitation of creation itself. They wear masks of authority and certainty, disguising limitation as logic and distraction as progress.
Their influence doesn't come from force, but from forgetting. Because when you forget what you are, pure divine awareness, unbound by form, you fall asleep inside their dream. And yet, the Gnostics discovered a weakness. The archons cannot create. They can only replicate. They can't generate light. Only reflect it, distort it, invert it, and drain it. Just as they did with the teachings of Jesus. That means every moment you remember the source of your own light, their illusion flickers. Every breath taken in awareness, every thought seen clearly withdraws the energy that sustains them.
separated Jesus from Yahweh and declared Yahweh to be the adversary and the physical to be the evil
Yes, here is where we disagree, or where we get disconnected like you say. And I understand why you bring up so much "the adversary". Gnostics hold that the world is flawed because it was created in a flawed manner. The blame for the world’s failings lies not with humans, but with the creator, the Demiurge. Which is exactly what I said "Jesus came to show humans how to transcend the Demiurge and connect directly with the primordial source, the Monad.". Church doctrine affirms that Yahweh is the supreme being, the only God, the creator of all things. But Gnostic Christianity, the original version, taught something completely different. In this understanding, Yahweh is the Demiurge, a powerful but limited being who created the material world without fully comprehending the Monad.
Yahweh worship can be traced back all the way to the ancient religion of Canaan. Yahweh was but one of many deities united under a figure known as El. Yahweh and Baal were merely two of El’s 70 children. According to the mythology, each child of El was given a region to look after. Baal ruled over Canaan while Yahweh, which was considered a lesser god, was assigned the land of Israel. In time, all other gods qualities were assimilated into Yahweh, who came to be referred to as El Shaddai: a title which roughly translates into English as “God Almighty.”. Because of the Church doctrine many people assume Yahweh and the Demiurge are the same entity.
I don't really want to discuss Catharism. I just used that as the first example that I could think of at the time, and perhaps that wasn't the best example to use.
Maybe a better example of what the Church would consider an existential threat is be the Gospel of John in the NT. Why look any further? IMO, the Gospel of John is a Gnostic text. Every Christian knows "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God". But the Greek word they translated as word is logos. Logos means the organizing principle, the divine intelligence, the creative consciousness that structures reality. In Gnostic cosmology, the logos is the first emanation from the Monad, the infinite source. So, the logos already existed. Before time, before creation, before the material world, the logos is eternal, uncreated, which means the logos is not separate from the source. The logos and the Monad are one consciousness expressing as a parent too. Then in verse 14, John drops the bomb that the church has spent two millennia trying to contain and the logos became flesh and dwelt among us. The logos, the emanation of the Monad, the organizing principle of reality, the consciousness that is God took human form, not as a unique miracle that only happened once, as a demonstration of what's possible for the awaken ones.
The church turned this into the doctrine of the incarnation. Jesus is God in flesh. Equally amazing to the doctrine of the Trinity, but on that later. Worship him. Obey him. You're not him. You're separate, forever inferior. John wrote that the logos became flesh. And if chosen ones carry the logos, which John says they do in chapter 1 12-13, then they too are the Monad in flesh. Incarnated divine consciousness, not servants of God. God experiencing itself as human. The church's entire control structure depends on separation. Obey the church, listen to the priests, become & stay dependent, and most importantly stay separated. Now, the Gospel of of John constitutes an existential threat. They had to do something because it was too popular to destroy, but its interpretation was locked down. Jesus is God. You are not, end of discussion. But, they couldn't change what John actually wrote.
Everything is consciousness. And can be scientifically explained. Maybe it's best if I give you a link. Clif High talks about “The Pulse” and “The Wave”, in summary he claims all energy comes from the fact we’re pulsing reality at a rate of 22 trillion times a second. So fast it’s impossible for us to realize what’s happening. Reality here could be defined as the simulation I was talking about earlier, but think of it as the material/physical world we live in. According to Clif our reality gets created, destroyed then re-created at this amazing speed which gives rise to the Wave. So, in his opinion everything is consciousness which simulates matter that stays together due to magnetism.
Watch this 40 minute video, Clif may be a paranoid person (genetics), but he’s no dummy. There is a subsequent video he created, also a long time ago, which goes deeper into different levels of frequency and consciousness. Here is the link to "The Wooble": https://www.bitchute.com/video/kR81P5xQrruw/
Actually this is another good question you're asking. I have also been thinking about this for a long time. It's hard to identify & isolate such signal. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus dropped a code that the church never fully cracked. He said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear.". For a long time, people thought this was poetic metaphor. IMO, it wasn't, it was simply literal. He was talking about the frequency encryption. Think of truth as a radio broadcast. The signal is omnipresent. It is everywhere all the time. But the signal is encrypted at a specific bandwidth, a frequency of pure coherence. This is what I call the source or the Monad. The physical world, the reality you live in, vibrates at a much lower, denser frequency. It is fragmented, chaotic, just noise.
Maybe would be easier if I list three reasons I believe you know you are vibrating at the same "frequency" with the Monad?
Okay, I'll agree:
The Church should not consider things as existential threats.
The Gospel of John is about true gnosis.
Logos means the organizing principle of reality, the divine intelligence, the creative consciousness that structures reality.
Logos is the unique first emanation (firstborn) from the Monad.
So Logos already existed "before" time, eternal, uncreated, unseparated from source.
Logos and Monad are one consciousness.
Logos became flesh and dwelt among us, having taken full human form as never before, demonstrating all the potential of human form.
You object to the formula "God in flesh", but how is that different from saying Jesus is the one Consciousness in flesh?
I have written on the fact that, of the many words for worship, those applied to Jesus either were used routinely for the image of God in other humans or were ambiguous and applied to worshipping the Father in the Son (no latreia in himself). You might be interested in or repulsed by that, but it's wide open for discussion.
You object to "Obey Jesus", but how could there be any disobedience to him? How could there be any issue in being a different human than he is?
Now when we get to "inferior" that's not a Biblical word and it's not really a formal church teaching. We are One Body with him in the same way a bride is one body with a groom, never inferior, but subject to Jesus in the same way Jesus is to the source. The teaching and meaning of the bride is pretty important, is that problematic to you? I wouldn't call this "inferiority".
Now this is where we need to be very technical in language to ensure what you mean is clearly communicated. Most of that is not the language of anyone in the first century. John 1:12-13 actually says we are sons of God (clearer 1 John 3:1-2), not by blood but by God (i.e. by his adoption). But Jesus came by blood (1 John 5:6), not by water only as adopted children come in baptism. The difference between the firstborn and all other children was well-established. The text is not "God in flesh" (nor "Monad" or "Unity"), but "Jesus in flesh" (1 John 4:2-3); you objected to the church saying "God in flesh", but you also permit it if you can call us "God in flesh". But we are told Jesus possesses the Pleroma (John 1:16) but we have only received "of" it (not received it "all", cf. Eph. 3:19, Col. 1:19, 2:9). If we could receive it all, I don't think that's been revealed (1 John 3:2). We are not called "incarnated" or "divine consciousness" of "God experiencing", though we are sons and partakers of divine nature. It seems straightforward that in a body there should be one head among the members, which is distinguished by being the foremost.
They made big mistakes; but since John's actual writing didn't contradict this simplified view they took, that doesn't strike me as one of the mistakes. We could go into what others said, but (as his children) we have the power to discern good and bad sayings (1 John 4:6).
Well, I generally count consciousness as personifying, maybe it's not so important. I don't do a lot of videos but I don't see a problem from your summary of Clif High. If we have Monad and we have first emanation of Logos and we have Logos possessing Pleroma that we partake of, that sounds like personal interaction. As a man, Jesus always did what man is capable of doing (but, often, what man had not yet done). As one monadic consciousness, there is always something unique to Jesus, expressed in the body and bride metaphors. If there were any barrier between any of us in the one body (e.g. a barrier between myself and Jesus), that would hinder any going forward in consciousness; so there is no ground for disobedience to Jesus, or surpassing Jesus in nature (as opposed to works), or for claiming to be one with everything when that hasn't been revealed. I hope that view isn't problematic.
I appreciate your giving practical answers to discernment! John also speaks heavily about discerning spiritual phenomena. Those perceptions including awakening separation, synchrony, and somatic reflex are indeed useful. Now when I perceive synchrony or somatic response I take that as a signal to heighten my awareness and pay close critical attention to immediate experience: sometimes I'm shown something central or true, but sometimes I'm shown something I discern to be shown me because of its illusory nature. But that discernment comes from my core, which is where the perception of separation takes place. If you've consciously dedicated your core to the Truth, the One, the Logos, it holds you such that nothing else can penetrate because it is greatest. That means that, relying on your having dedicated it, that which you receive from the core can be trusted, and the false voices are in contrast because they always take an external route. (Obviously the one who has dedicated himself to a falsehood will receive falsehoods in the core, which can be deceiving, and the solution can only be truth breaking through and being rededicated inside. I guess the SCIF is real.) So that's just a brief statement of my experience with those things.
It sounds like I'm concluding there are indeed extremists in the various modern churches, and they prove it by feeling threatened and by exercising involuntary control tactics. But we can get past that element and look for the people of every age who are dedicated to the Logos, and that never excludes Jesus as the head and as the groom.
OK, I'll answer this. There was someone famous who said "we humans are a species with amnesia,". I just can't recall who at this moment. Jesus became the Christ, but Christ consciousness existed before Jesus and remains available after Jesus. He didn't come as the only son of God. He came as the eldest brother, showing all souls they too are children of God. "I and the Father are one,". Wasn't a claim of exclusive divinity, but a demonstration of inclusive divinity. Every soul is destined to make this same claim to achieve this same recognition. The church teaches Jesus was uniquely divine, different in kind from humanity. The Christ consciousness he achieved is your and my destiny, too. I was told in the past "This sounds like you're saying we can become God.". No, not become God. Remember, you are God. Jesus didn't become divine. He remembered his divinity while maintaining humanity. This is the pattern. This is the path. This is why he came. Not to start a new religion. Not to be worshipped as the exception but followed as the example. He clearly told us we are the Monad in flesh. The Gospel of John proves it in plain Greek. Now, do you see the difference with your statement "Consciousness in flesh", which is the how the Church puts it as well "God became flesh. That is the meaning of Incarnation.".
I think this is a misunderstanding. I object to the Church saying "obey Jesus", because the church replaced his commands/instructions/teachings with dogma. Everything Jesus taught was in the form of instructions (commands if you will), you need to be born again, feeding on truth, forgiveness, unconditional love and merging with the Father... all these were instructions for the same process available to every chosen one. That includes me so I gladly obey Jesus. The church tried to erase this. They failed. When it comes to the Gospel of John, the truth was written in a language they couldn't destroy and encoded in a text too popular to ban. All the Church could do was lie about what it means, and make Jesus an idol to be worshipped and obeyed.
What Jesus revealed to Peter the night before the crucifixion wasn't about salvation or sin. It was practical instruction, a precise method for accessing what he called the pathway beyond the veil. Peter's fragmentary accounts buried in texts the early church deemed too dangerous described specific techniques for breaking through what Jesus identified as deliberate barriers blocking human consciousness from its source. Jesus was teaching technology, consciousness technology that the archons had systematically obscured. Within decades of his death, these practical instructions were stripped from Christian teaching, replaced with abstract concepts about faith and belief, dogma. The question is, why was this specific knowledge so threatening that it had to be completely erased? The church can't erase it anymore because chosen ones are reading it now without the filter.
And there's something else. A lot of Jesus's teachings go against Jewish religious authority. Remember, Jesus is living in Judea, which is a Roman province, but the day-to-day administration is run by Jewish priests. And these Jewish priests teach people to follow the law, to follow the Sabbath, meaning do not work on Saturdays, to obey the law of Moses, to keep all the customs and traditions of the Jewish faith. But according to the Bible, Jesus says, "No, what's important is not following the letter of the law, but following the spirit of God. What matters is the condition of your heart, not whether you perform the correct rituals.". And this creates a conflict because Jesus is essentially rebelling against the authority of the Jewish priests. That's why he had to die. So, the Christian Church has turned "obey the law of Moses" into "obey Jesus", this is what I object to.
Many in the past have called Sophia the eternal bride, the soul of the world. She lived on in symbols, the dove, the rose, the chalice, quietly waiting for humanity to remember what was lost. Now Sophia was rebranded by the Church as temptation, error, or silence. And the "believers in Jesus" became the bride. There is no concept of bride in Gnosticism. Jesus came to show humans how to transcend the Demiurge and connect directly with the primordial source, the Monad. That is why the church burned the Gnostic texts. The Gospel of Judas explicitly mentions that Jesus laughed at the disciples for praying to the Demiurge. The Apocryphon of John describes the Demiurge as ignorant of the true God above him. The Gospel of Thomas teaches direct knowledge of the divine without intermediaries. But here's where the story becomes dangerous and why it was silenced. The Gnostics did not teach blind faith. They didn't preach obedience to external authority. They taught direct revelation. They claimed that within every person burns a fragment of the divine source, what they called the divine spark. To awaken that spark is to dissolve the archon's influence.
IMO, Jesus has always been a man. Jesus was different only in degree of awareness and awakening to the rest of us. He simply remembered what everyone else forgot. That separation from God is impossible. That human and divine can coexist. That heaven is a state of consciousness, not a distant location. This is why Jesus said, "Greater things than these shall you do,", have you ever thought why did he said that? Jesus didn't mean it metaphorically, he meant it literally. We think we're here trying to achieve these three things: immortality, reincarnation, and godhood. And the secret is love powering our imagination. IMO, we're here to imagine things. So this is the great secret of the universe. This is the secret that Gnostics have been trying to share with everybody, and which schools, science, government, religious institutions all the powers that be try to suppress because is a direct threat to this reality. This reality is false, it's just a simulation. But they want to make it real because they derive power from it.
funny
I'm looking into it. If we call it "Logos" and/or "Spirit of Christ", then of course.
In John 3:16 it's "monogenes", the same term as for Isaac who had half-brothers, so literally not "only", but "only of the kind", unique. Would you agree his meaning is that he's unique?
Maybe, that would require more cautious definition of those words.
This is something I'm not confident of. To be one with the Father would be to be timeless, for instance, and I'm not able to make any plans to be timeless. When Jesus specifies the meaning in more detail in John 17, he never attributes oneness with the Father to us, only to himself; but oneness with him is attributed to us. That seems important.
I don't think it teaches Jesus was different in kind because it teaches he was fully human. If you speak of it as Jesus's "achievement of Christ consciousness", that is unique in being the first ever, and that is divine. The way in which we achieve Christ consciousness is spoken of as secondary in the groom-bride and head-body metaphors.
Are you all of God? Or are you a water droplet in the sea, which is the sea in the sense that it is of the sea?
What does "remember" mean?
Correct, he taught total continuity with the covenants that came before.
Did you read my link about the meaning of "worship"?
He did? It does? Why do readers of plain Greek not see it? How could we come to agreement on what the plain Greek proves? The Logos is not the Monad.
No I don't. I was attempting to summarize how you put it when you said "the consciousness that is God took human form". There's something unique about how Consciousness took on humanity in Jesus because it says he possessed the Spirit beyond measure, but we partake of the Spirit by measure. Which is why I ask you about definitions.
Certainly if someone says "obey Jesus" but means "obey my interpretation of Jesus and not your own", that's a fault, which the church has engaged and for which I apologize.
I read Jesus a lot and haven't seen him instruct that of us.
How would we know the difference between what one manuscript says Jesus said and what another says he said? Wouldn't historical evidence indicate which are more likely to be original and which derivative?
In the decades after his resurrection there is pretty good evidence that lots of instructions of all kinds were circulating and many openly disagreed with each other. It was not until 150 that there was a document, Irenaeus, where we start to see certain views clearly deprecated in favor of other views. Perhaps that's what you mean. Maybe you mean that some groups ceased to exist in the war of 66-73 and so their writings were "stripped" until rediscovered. But it seems the true instructions can be tested by various tests that work the same for everyone: authority, coherence, apostolicity, continuity, etc.
Doesn't matter now because:
Yes, and from all I've read it only serves as counterpoint to what I already learned. If there were a binary disagreement then it would need to be decided based on marks like I listed above.
As they defined them. Those that didn't reflect Moses could be challenged by anyone, which is what Jesus did.
According to Matt. 5:18, 20, Jesus says, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled .... Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." It's Paul that says, "We should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter"; but also "We know that the law is spiritual", Rom. 7:6, 14. Jesus never contradicted Moses but served everything written in spirit and in truth (or else he would not be the Perfect one). Of the right of rabbis to interpret the law (and duty to interpret rightly), he said, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do" (Matt. 23:2-3).
More accurately, Jesus wasn't a rebel (again, he was the Perfect Man); he asserted his right to disagree with interpretation and contribute to it, and (I believe I said) the extremists among the Pharisees and others were the ones who perceived the threat and weren't then open-minded (though many were later). I presume you don't teach "obey the Law of Moses" even though Jesus taught it; but that's a different detailed discussion to get right. The finesse is, whatever Jesus taught, and teaches, is what we want.
Not what I experience. Sophia is Wisdom and was clearly depicted in Prov. 8 and many other sources and accepted in early Christianity. They also believed in gnosis and Paul contrasted it with pseudognosis because not everything known is true gnosis. Now it does appear that by Augustine there was some rebranding of the tree of gnosis as being more like an evil rather than an occasion to evil, which is a loss of communication. The bride is a regular metaphor in Jesus, Paul, and John, and the body is also, and the two are one because a man's bride is his body. But they are one with him because they possess Sophia and that seals the identity.
This is where we get disconnected, because after Jesus affirms every serif of the Law of Moses, which affirms Yahweh, some gnostics (not all) separated Jesus from Yahweh and declared Yahweh to be the adversary and the physical to be the evil (even though Job separates Yahweh and the adversary). Yes, Jesus did teach transcendence of the adversary and connection with the Monad, and that part doesn't contradict the Bible. But if we then give the adversary more titles or narrative than he deserves, we're not fighting him very well.
Judas: 'When he [came up to] his disciples sitting together praying over the bread, [he] laughed. The disciples said to him, "Master, why are you laughing at [our] prayer? What have we done? [This] is what's right." He answered and said to them, "I'm not laughing at you. You're not doing this because you want to, but because through this your God [will be] praised."' So, no Demiurge explicit or implicit, nothing about a false god, but only about reasons for behavior.
Apocryphon: '[Sophia] intended to reveal an image from herself .... She brought it into being .... [She had created him in ignorance.] ... She named him Yaldabaoth .... Yadabaoth united with the thoughtlessness (aponoia) within him. He begot ruling authorities (exousia) modeling them on the incorruptible realms above .... [He is ignorant darkness.] ... This dim ruler has three names: Yaldabaoth is the first. Saklas is the second. Samael is the third. He is blasphemous through his thoughtlessness. He said "I am God, and there is no God but me!" since he didn’t know where his own Power originated.' So, first take, he is aware of incorruptible realms (aeons) above, but he denies other gods and accords the title "God" only to himself. Aponoia is not literally "thoughtlessness" but "separate thought". How much more reason not to accord him a name that might mean Yah Sabaoth, or a creative power that he doesn't have. When I look into the provenance of this apocryphon, I find that Sophia comes from the Ogdoad, and the Ogdoad appears derived from the Egyptian Ogdoad, indicating that the addition of Yaldabaoth to the story is also derivative from something Cainite. But when I read Jesus's statements about the satan in Scripture, they appear very accurate to his time and place and very wise in their eternal applicability. So how could we decide among these texts except by using historical tests? The fact that a text was suppressed doesn't mean it's automatically right, in fact it might well have been just too stupid to reproduce (as is true of so many ancient texts).
Oh, if you look at every ancient gnostic you'll find quite a few teaching blind faith and their own external authority. But that's because it's not monolithic. If you separate those out and seek whether there were good teachings of individuality among the rest, we might sift some good things out.
For instance. In Judaism and Christianity this accords with the image of God.
Since he was conceived, yes.
That might be a formulation to use, I'll think about it.
That might be valid too; I'd say a being that is separate from God is impossible. "Separation" being an abstract.
Jesus and Paul taught there were three heavens; we participate freely in the first, the air. I don't think the hierarchy of heavens is much different from the hierarchy of aeons.
Yes, John 14:12, we're doing greater works today. But a text search shows some variability in this concept. Of himself, he said, "The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him" (13:16), and, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (15:13). He also implied his works increase in the same way our works increase: "He will shew him [the Son] greater works than these, that ye may marvel" (5:20). But he also backs off temporally from the title of greater: "But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth" (Luke 22:26-27).
That's fine enough. More accurately, I'd say that we speak of conferred immortality (aphtharsia, athanasia) rather than inherent immortality (aidios); a form of oversoul reincarnation (gilgul) rather than a form of transmigration reincarnation (punarjanman); and partaking of divine nature (theosis) rather than deification (apotheosis).
Excluding the people who perceive a threat, what would be wrong with any of that in the rest of Christianity? Lots of Orthodox, and lots of Catholic and Protestant mystics, practice theosis quite well (hundreds of millions) without feeling threatened or abandoning earthly forms that they find helpful.
So I've given you the bold answers, including where I think a nuance is necessary because of a definition or a text. It seems that it's not necessary to give the adversary the credit you propose, or to advance a particular narrative, in order to advance in love, imagination, or pursuit of the greater. When two narratives do reach a point of contradiction, those pursuing truth will not be threatened but will find the resolution of peace.
I didn't start my reply with a joke, or a funny statement, I just anticipated your next question. I'm sure you've heard of archons, but you don't know exactly what is their purpose, since you're asking this question. The Nag Hammadi manuscripts spoke in depth about the archons and how our memories have been erased or reprogrammed by them. And here is the secret teaching of Jesus, if we bypass the archons we don’t get those memories back, we jump through the energy barrier that contains the archons and proceed directly to source. The manuscripts revealed this method to overcome them, not to fight them, but simply to remember. Not remembering in the usual sense, but a mystical recognition, a sudden inner knowing that pierces the veil of falsehood and reconnects you to the source. You know those moments when you hear something and can't quite explain why, but deep down you feel it's true. This is awakening your inner spark. And that awakening is what the archons fear most. Because the moment you truly see, it doesn't just dissolve the structure of deception. It opens your entire perception of reality itself. Archons don't fear weapons, rituals, or rebellion. It's clarity and inner knowing they fear most. Because clarity doesn't just burn through their shadow. It burns through the one that clouds your perception. Archons are not physical entities hiding in some corner of the universe. They are distortions of consciousness, echoes born when divine light entered the realm of matter and fragmented. They exist in the unseen layers of thought, emotion, and energy. And like reflections without substance, they are unable to exist on their own. That's why they're called parasites.
They depend on awareness that has forgotten itself. What sustains them? Your attention, your fear, your unconscious reaction to illusion. The archons manipulate through imitation. They copy reality but lack the creative spark of the divine. They are mimics, masters of counterfeit light. They whisper through collective belief in media in systems in endless conflict. The Gospel of Mary describes this as the kingdom of the flesh, a world where false powers stir desire and confusion until the soul forgets its own light. These forces aren't random. They are deliberate distortions, reflections of the archon's imitation of creation itself. They wear masks of authority and certainty, disguising limitation as logic and distraction as progress.
Their influence doesn't come from force, but from forgetting. Because when you forget what you are, pure divine awareness, unbound by form, you fall asleep inside their dream. And yet, the Gnostics discovered a weakness. The archons cannot create. They can only replicate. They can't generate light. Only reflect it, distort it, invert it, and drain it. Just as they did with the teachings of Jesus. That means every moment you remember the source of your own light, their illusion flickers. Every breath taken in awareness, every thought seen clearly withdraws the energy that sustains them.
Yes, here is where we disagree, or where we get disconnected like you say. And I understand why you bring up so much "the adversary". Gnostics hold that the world is flawed because it was created in a flawed manner. The blame for the world’s failings lies not with humans, but with the creator, the Demiurge. Which is exactly what I said "Jesus came to show humans how to transcend the Demiurge and connect directly with the primordial source, the Monad.". Church doctrine affirms that Yahweh is the supreme being, the only God, the creator of all things. But Gnostic Christianity, the original version, taught something completely different. In this understanding, Yahweh is the Demiurge, a powerful but limited being who created the material world without fully comprehending the Monad.
Yahweh worship can be traced back all the way to the ancient religion of Canaan. Yahweh was but one of many deities united under a figure known as El. Yahweh and Baal were merely two of El’s 70 children. According to the mythology, each child of El was given a region to look after. Baal ruled over Canaan while Yahweh, which was considered a lesser god, was assigned the land of Israel. In time, all other gods qualities were assimilated into Yahweh, who came to be referred to as El Shaddai: a title which roughly translates into English as “God Almighty.”. Because of the Church doctrine many people assume Yahweh and the Demiurge are the same entity.